Saturday, 13 October 2018

Music to the Undersea Adventures of Jacques Cousteau


One of the great many pleasures of visiting the city-state of Monaco is taking a tour of the Musee Oceanographique. And if visitors to this combination of museum and institute had their reasons stamped on their foreheads, mine would have read “Jacques Cousteau Brought Me Here”. Cousteau served as its director from 1957 to 1988.

Many like me who grew up watching the adventures of Jacques Cousteau in his television series The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau were obviously enthralled by his discoveries in episodes such as “The Sleeping Sharks of Yutacan” and “The Legend of Lake Titicaca”.

The captivating scenes of deep sea divers kitted out in their diving suits, goggles and acqua-lungs as they explored the surrounding marine environment which Cousteau’s films usually insisted was uncharted, were of course memorable, and indeed, formed one of the supreme delights of watching television in colour.

Perhaps under-appreciated by children such as me was the accompanying music with its signature fanfares and cadences which communicated the wondrous and exotic world of reefs, oceans and sea creatures. The music was created by the likes of Walter Scharf, Leonard Rosenman, Lyn Murray, William Goldstein, John Scott, Kenyon Hopkins and Gerald Fried. Lalo Schifrin and George Delerue were perhaps the most famous contributors.

Sadly, little by way of the original music is available for purchase in the original vinyl format or in digital form. However, a few months ago, I discovered an album composed by Scharf, who received two Emmys in 1970 and 1974 for his work on the series of documentaries produced between 1965 and 1975. Entitled The Legend of the Living Sea, it was an original symphonic work specially commissioned in 1971 for a Cousteau museum exhibition aboard the Queen Mary moored off Long Beach in California.

It was recorded in Bavaria, West Germany with Scharf conducting the Graunke Symphony Orchestra of Munich.

Enjoy!

© Adeyinka Makinde (2018)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

Positing Corbyn's Labour Party as Practitioners of "Soviet Anti-Semitism"


A recent opinion piece by a certain Ben Cohen for the ‘Jewish News Syndicate’  entitled “Soviet anti-Semitism in a British guise” presented the view that the Jeremy Corbyn-led British Labour Party has adopted the trappings of an anti-Jewish political ethos which he claims has been adopted from the Soviet Union. He also points the finger at Corbyn for empathising with the Soviet Union which the author charges as having operated a state policy of anti-Semitism from the time of the coming to power of the Bolsheviks. However, a close scrutiny of Cohen’s claims reveal that they are in several respects lacking in historicity and in others are devoid of the context that helps explain -though not condone- the persecutions visited upon Soviet Jewry, as well as the mutual antagonism developed between the Soviet Union and Israel during the Cold War. Cohen’s accusation of the Labour Party as being the repository of “Jew-hatred” is a huge one, but one that is flawed. It is symptomatic of an ongoing series of accusations and allegations which many are beginning to understand is a reaction against Labour’s tilt towards a stance that is predicated not on “Jew-hatred, but on an ideological rationale which comprehends the state of Israel as a colonial-settler project that has involved the continuous policy of ethnic cleansing against the indigenous Palestinian population, as well as the above-the-law actions of the Israeli state, which acts with impunity in its ill-treatment of the Palestinian people and its persistent defiance of international law.

1. Anti-Semitism and pre-World War II Soviet Union

Cohen’s suggestion that Soviet anti-Semitism “was state policy in the USSR, arguably from the 1917 Revolution onwards” simply does not stand the test of scrutiny.

No professional historian of repute could accept this given that a good amount of figures of Jewish origin served at the helm of the Soviet state. In fact, it would not be inaccurate to state that many compartments of the state including its political, administrative, cultural and security establishments were dominated by Jews.

The top echelon of the leaders of the early USSR included Leon Trotsky, the founder of the Red Army; Yakov Sverdlov, the Chairman of the Central Executive Committee; Grigori Zinoviev, who headed the Communist International; Karl Radek, the commissar for the press and Maxim Litvinov, the foreign affairs commissar. Other key figures of the time include Lev Kamenev, one of seven members of the first Politburo who served for short periods respectively in the office equivalent of head of state, and later as the Prime Minister of Soviet Russia.

Jews formed a sizeable proportion of the Council of People’s Commissars (Sovnarkom), the diplomatic corps, and trade missions. They also served as key administrators within the state security apparatus comprising the secret police (Cheka) and the network of labour camps. Indeed, Yuri Slezkine, the Jewish-Russian academic who authored The Jewish Century which was published by Princeton University Press in 2004, wrote that the NKVD “was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions.”

Before Slezkine, the British Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro noted that “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator.”

Slezkine also makes clear in his book that the preponderance of ethnic Jews in the Soviet state apparatus benefitted the aggregate of Jews living in the USSR. The resentment this caused to non-Jewish Soviet citizens was reflected in private letters intercepted by the Soviet state, samples of which Slezkine refers to in his book. For instance, one correspondence in October 1925 stated that “the Jewish dominance is absolute”. Another from the previous month, claimed that “every child knows that the Soviet government is a Jewish government”, while another opined that “the Jews for the most part, live extremely well: everything, from trade to state employment, is in their hands.” And another from June 1925 complains that “the whole press is in the hands of the Jews”.

These sorts of observations were not confined to non-Jews. Slezkine refers to the diary of a Russian writer named Mikhail Bulgakov, in which Bulgakov records visiting the editorial offices of a magazine named Godless with a Jewish friend Dmitry Stonov. While walking out of the premises, Stonov is recorded as remarking “Reminds me of a synagogue…”

Anti-Jewish sentiment was a matter keenly noted by the steers of the Soviet state and in response to this, Joseph Stalin launched a massive campaign against anti-Semitism in December 1927. At the Fifteenth Party Congress, Stalin declared “This evil has to be combated with the utmost ruthlessness, comrades.”

What followed were newspaper exposes, speeches by celebrities and legal action was taken against transgressors who were prosecuted in show trials. In 1931, Stalin himself said in an interview that “active anti-Semites” faced the death penalty, and it was under Stalin’s watch that the Soviet state set up the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in 1934 with Birobidzhan as its capital.

When they took control of the Russian Empire in 1917, the Bolsheviks officially abolished the Pale of Settlement, the region of Imperial Russia within which Jews were legally confined. Lenin had at the outset of his seizure of power underlined the commitment of his regime to stamping out anti-Jewish sentiment in the Russian population. In a speech that he delivered in March 1919 called “On Anti-Jewish Pogroms”, he spoke about the “lies and slander that are spread about the Jews” and enjoined the Russian masses to embrace Jews as “our brothers” and to consider them as “our comrades in the struggle for socialism”.

So much for Cohen’s supposition of anti-Semitism “arguably” being Soviet state policy from the 1917 revolution.

2. Anti-Semitism in the Post-War Soviet Union

While he is less than definitive in his claim of the existence of an anti-Jewish state policy from the time of the Bolshevik ascent to power and the official inception of the Soviet Union, Cohen expresses a greater level of certainty about state-sponsored anti-Semitism in the post-war years. He is on surer ground here. The ‘anti-Cosmopolitical campaign’, and the ‘Doctor’s Plot’, for instance, bear testament to this. There is evidence of state policies in areas such as education and employment which targeted Jews on the basis of their ethnicity. In a similar vein, it is clear that there were policies directed at Jews on the basis of their commitment to an ideology which stood in opposition to that of the Soviet state.

However, what Cohen fails to do is to give this turn of events a proper socio-historical context. Why would the Soviet Union which as Cohen acknowledges “liberated Auschwitz in 1945”, and which, although he does not refer to it, was the first country to provide de jure recognition to the state of Israel after its creation in 1948, turn from a state policy geared towards combating anti-Semitism to one of state sanctioned persecution?

The Second War, which was known as ‘The Great Patriotic War’ during its prosecution, as indeed it is still known to this day, involved Stalin’s invocation of Russian history and sense of patriotism as a motivational tool to fight the invader armed forces of the German Reich.

While the Soviet effort essentially involved a coalition of the different ethnic groups who lived in the Soviet Union, the heightened atmosphere of national feeling created the conditions within which ethnic Russians began to consider themselves to be underrepresented and Jews overrepresented in many institutions, and sought to regain control -as they perceived it- of these institutions. Thus a clandestine system of quotas was implemented in the social and economic spheres such as in relation to the admission of Jews into the Communist Party, the army, and trade unions. This does not serve as an excuse for the venom of racism, but supplies the necessary background, without which anti-Jewish feeling is simply presented as an inexplicable phenomenon.

The other post-war development to contribute to what would formally develop into an era of persecution was the growth among Soviet Jews of the ideology of political Zionism. While Stalin may have been favourable to the creation of an Israeli state which he thought would serve as a Soviet-friendly outpost in the Middle East that was dominated by the old European colonial powers (he assumed that the new state, led by Labour Zionists, many of whom originated from the old Russian Empire would be a socialist one with a pro-Soviet outlook), he soon became disillusioned and evidently believed that the loyalties of Soviet Jews would be focused on a foreign state rather than on the Soviet state.

The beginnings of a purge is evidenced by the so-called ‘Doctors Plot’ and the clamp down on the membership of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee most notably through the murder of its chairman Solomon Mikhoels, and the sending to a gulag of individuals such as Polina Zhemchuzhina, the Jewish wife of long-time foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who was an active supporter of the committee.

It is important to note that Jews were not the only victims of Soviet state policies in the aftermath of the war. In fact, beginning during the war, other ethnic groups and nationalities bore the brunt of state-directed programmes which targeted them with mass deportation and persecution.

These include ethnic Germans, Koreans, Finns and other diaspora nationalities such as Karachais, Kalmyks, Chechens, Inguish, Balkars, Crimean Tartars, and Meskhetian Turks. The internal measures of forced repatriation were based on the premise of collaboration with the wartime enemies of the Soviet state, and were carried out on the basis of being either preventive or punitive.

It is also important to note that Soviet Jewry did not suffer the same fate as these nationality groups and no documentary evidence of a plan to deport the Jewish population to Siberia or other Soviet region has ever materialised. As Antonella Salomoni wrote in a 2010 essay entitled “State-Sponsored Anti-Semitism in Postwar USSR. Studies and Research Perspectives”, the allegation of a planned mass deportation of Soviet Jews is “a ‘myth’, which was the product of ‘social hysteria’ and panic permeating the Jewish community in the years immediately after the war and the Holocaust, later on purposely fomented in the peculiar context of the cold war.”

The Cold War became a stage through which the anti-colonial stance of the Soviet Union clashed with Israel’s affiliation with the United States, the ideological competitor of the Soviet Union, which of course was perceived as a force for global imperialism. The political and military enmity between the Soviet Union and Israel was also fueled by Soviet support for Palestinian militant groups, as well as the granting of military aid to Israel’s major Arab foes, Egypt and Syria.

Israel’s leaders considered the Soviet Union to be the overseer of international terrorist movements, and also to be the backer of Arab states bent on its destruction. The Israeli military of course prevailed over Soviet-armed Arab armies in the wars of 1967 and 1973. However, one other notable, but largely unremarked upon episode during this period of mutual antipathy was the part played by Israeli military intelligence in arming and training Hezb-i-Islami Mujahideen, an Islamist guerilla group fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

While Cohen portrays Soviet policies in the Middle East as having been inextricably linked to anti-Jewish sentiment, he conveniently ignores the fact that the USSR supported a whole range of national liberation movements around the world, and that Soviet support for Middle Eastern Arab regimes was consistent with a policy seeking to combat American influence in the region in a similar vein to other contests for ideological supremacy in other parts of the globe.

3. Jewish Estrangement with the Left

There is a noticeable tendency among those who defend the state of Israel against the political Left to explicitly or implicitly position Leftist thinking as being somehow ineluctably anti-Jewish. The Left or the ‘hard’ Left, the argument goes, has either always been or has now morphed into a bastion of anti-Semitism, once the sole preserve of the far Right.

Ben Cohen’s piece neatly fits into this paradigm.

There are, however, problems with this narrative. And a legitimate point of scrutiny must begin by acknowledging the historical prominence of Jewish individuals and swathes of Jewish communities in the promotion, during a large period of the 20th century, of the radical ideologies of the Left, including Marxism.

The contention between the ideologies of Bolshevism on the one hand, and Zionism on the other in the hearts of Jewish communities alluded to by Winston Churchill in a 1920 article for the Illustrated Sunday Herald  entitled “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People”, was a real one. And the resolution of this intellectual conflict in favour of Zionism is one that needs referencing in contemporary debates about the relationship between the political Left and Jewry.

A necessary part of explaining what may be termed the Jewish estrangement from the Left must consider the waxing and waning of Jewish power and influence during the 20th century -the “Jewish Century” according to Yuri Slezkine- which saw the diminution of Jewish power in the Soviet Union and its rise in the Middle East.

The prominence of Jews in the empire which preceded the Soviet Union cannot be underestimated. As Professor Robert Service, a historian once remarked, “Jews supplied leaders and activists to revolutionary parties in the Russian Empire wildly out of proportion to their size in the population.”

Outside of Russia were the likes of Rosa Luxemburg in Germany, Bela Kun in Hungary and Emma Goldman in the United States who the philo-Semite Winston Churchill once wrote were involved in a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality.” He waxed lyrical about this “mystic and mysterious race” who he claimed “have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

There are numerous instances of Jewish individuals and organisations of the time affirming that Jews were at the vanguard of the Bolshevik takeover of Russia. For instance, an article in the September 10 1920 edition of the American Hebrew periodical which referred to the revolution as “an achievement” went on to proclaim the event as having been “largely the outcome of Jewish thinking, of Jewish discontent, of Jewish effort to reconstruct”.

A few even went further to assert a coherence between Communism and Judaism. In an article published by the Jewish Chronicle in 1919, Leopold J. Greenberg, the paper’s editor wrote that “The ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism”. And in a book published in 1939, A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, a rabbi and philosopher, claimed that “The Communist soul is the soul of Judaism”, adding that “the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism”.

Jews were attracted to Marxism for a multiplicity of reasons. For one, it promised salvation from the anti-Jewish policies of the Russian Tsars, and, as Robert Service wrote: “its replication of Judaic traditions of book-learning, exegesis and prediction”. Furthermore, the Judaic tenet of Tikun Olam, which refers to the desire to create a “more perfect society”, nourished the messianic impulse that has often guided the thinking of both secular and religious Jews. As an opinion piece published in the Jerusalem Post in November 2017 surmised, “It was a utopian urge that makes one suspect Trotsky et al remained infected by the messianic bug of the Judaism that had vowed to shed.”

I.M. Berkerman, one of several Jewish intellectuals who contributed to a collection of essays in 1923 entitled Russia and the Jews, cautioned that “it goes without saying that not all Jews are Bolsheviks and not all Bolsheviks are Jews”. But in arguing that Jews had committed a “bitter sin” during the revolution, he said that it was “obvious that a disproportionate” amount of Jews who were “immeasurably fervent”, had participated in what he called “the torment of half-dead Russia by the Bolsheviks.” Yet, in the run up to last year’s centenary commemoration of the Bolshevik Revolution, the writer Ruth R. Wisse saw fit to ask the following in an article for the Tablet: “Why do American Jews Idealise Soviet Communism?” 

The waning of Jewish power in the USSR began with the rise to power of Stalin in the 1920s. Although some Russians have in popular lore characterised the manoeuvre as one involving Stalin and a clique of ‘gangsters’ from the Caucasus taking power from Trotsky and his Jewish associates at the point of a dagger, this is much too crude and inaccurate a summation. But his outmanoeuvring of Trotsky on the one hand and of Zinoviev and Kamanev on the other, began a trend that pushed Jews out of the party. As Karl Radek ruefully put it: “Moses took the Jews out of Egypt; Stalin takes them out of the Communist Party”.

The hold that international communism held over many Jews outside of Russia took some time to wane after Stalin’s bloody purges and the post-war policy of Russification. In the 1950s, anti-Leftist witch hunts in the United States affected many Jews in Hollywood, and many episodes of Soviet espionage against the United States related to the Manhattan project involved Jewish figures.

But the consolidation of the Zionist dream through the creation of Israel, the burgeoning Refusenik Movement in Russia, the euphoria surrounding Israel’s remarkable rout of Arab armies in the Six Day War, as well as the germination of the neoconservative philosophy of which several leaders of the anti-Stalinist Trotskyite faction of the Left played a defining role, all serve, to varying degrees, as key developments in the severing of Jews from the Left.

4. Corbyn’s comments as evidence of his defence of the Soviet Union

The two specific quotes used by Cohen as evidence of Jeremy Corbyn being a defender of “the Soviet regime”, and of Corbyn’s disposition as an “ideological fellow-traveller”, are symptomatic of a campaign that is geared to defame and to denigrate.

When Corbyn rose up in Parliament in July 1984 during a debate on employer-provided nurseries to claim that “the Soviet Union makes far greater nursery provision than this country”, he was in the first instance expressing the widespread revulsion of many inside the House of Commons and in the wider public at Conservative government plans to tax nurseries. This according to Corbyn was an inhumane encumbrance on women who wished to work. It  would, in his words, also  effectively serve as a “tax on children”.

Hansard records him as then going on to say the following:

The Soviet Union makes far greater nursery provision than this country, as do many other countries in both eastern and western Europe, including West Germany.

The snippet relied upon by Cohen thus take Corbyn’s words out of their correct context. Rather than upholding the Soviet Union as a paragon of virtue and achievement, he was underlining the fact that the British government was falling short of a standard set by countries designated as the ‘Second World’, that is, the socialist states of eastern Europe, and by other developed Western nations such as West Germany.

So far as his second quote is concerned, Corbyn’s disbelief, expressed in a Parliamentary debate, that the Soviet Union ever had the intention of invading western Europe, is one which with hindsight a great many people of different political outlooks would agree with. As the Cold War progressed after the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was clear that the spectre of mutually assured destruction served as a great disincentive for either NATO or the Warsaw Pact to initiate a full-blown conflict. Battle plans drawn up by the Warsaw Pact such as “Seven Days to the Rhine”, a simulation exercise of a seven-day nuclear war with NATO were framed as reactive measures to a first strike by NATO.

Again, Cohen conveniently ignores part of Corbyn’s rationale which was predicated on the huge loss of life sustained by the Soviets during the Second World War. And while his preceding words that “Conservative Members seem to be pretending that the Soviet Union is our enemy” may at first sight strike the unerring observer as being somewhat strange given the hostilities manifested by the arms race, through espionage intrigues and via proxy wars, it should be remembered that Corbyn was speaking in the context of the policies of detente embarked upon by Soviet leaders in concert with their American counterparts during the 1970s, as well as the later efforts of Mikhail Gorbachev to end the arms race.

He may have been thinking of the fact that the Soviet Union entered into a war time alliance with Britain and the United States to defeat Nazi Germany, a burden which was largely executed by Soviet armies in epic battles such as that fought in Stalingrad.

5. Conclusion

The present and ongoing campaign by groups representing the British Jewish community against Jeremy Corbyn thus cannot be fully understood without comprehending the lengthy and complex historical backdrop of Jews and the political Left.

Once upon a time, the majority of Jewish communities around the world were staunchly anti-Zionist. Jewish leaders such as the American Henry Morgenthau thought Zionism was “the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history”, arguing that it was “fanatical in its politics” and “sterile in its spiritual ideas”. Edwin Samuel Montagu, a Jewish-English politician, scathingly described it as a “mischievous political creed”. And needless to say, most Jews once adhered to the view that the man-made creation of a modern Israel would be an abomination.

But the triumph of Zionism over Bolshevism in the hearts of the majority of global Jewry has contrived to link the fortunes of Jews with that of Israel. Distinctions between political Zionism and Judaism are often blurred and criticism of Zionism as an ideology is interpreted as an attack on the Jewish people. This, critics point out, is borne out by the term “delegitimisation of Israel” which the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), interprets as the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, such as by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is “a racist endeavour”.

For many who are aware that a fundamental aspect of Zionism, whether emanating from the Left-wing Labour Zionists who publically espoused an accommodationist stance or from the Revisionist Zionism embraced by the followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky, was to expel Arab inhabitants in order to create a Jewish state, the supposition that the creation of Israel was not a racially-motivated project is one which does not rest well with logic. For them, the recent passage through the Knesset of the Basic Law on Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People serves as a formal acknowledgement of Israel as a racialist, ethno-state.

The frequent barbs relating to the inherent hostility to Jewry of Left-wing thinking as well as occasional ones pertaining to the existence of a supposedly Soviet form of “Jew hatred” that is capable of been appropriated is flawed and in the context of Ben Cohen’s piece intellectually dishonest.

In the final analysis, the struggle with the Labour Party, which under Tony Blair was ardently pro-Israeli and biased against Palestinian interests, is less about the existence of genuine anti-Jewish sentiment and more about protecting Zionist Israel from the sort of criticism never directed against it by a mainstream British political party. It is a party that the instigators of the campaign know is capable of winning a future general election, and which if in office would be more vigorous in holding the Israeli state to account for its multitude of violations of human rights as well as its persistent disregard for international law.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2018)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

Sunday, 30 September 2018

Primo Carnera - "Oaf, Bum or Legitimate Champion?"

Primo Carnera photographed by Edward Steichen

Was Primo Carnera an “oaf, bum or legitimate champion?” The question is posed in a video uploaded onto youtube by ‘Reznick’ who makes very engaging boxing videos.

Carnera, who reigned as world heavyweight boxing champion from June 29, 1933 to June 14, 1934, is a much maligned fighter. Although 6 foot 6 inches (1.98 m) tall and weighing as heavy as 275 pounds (125), Carnera was a poor boxer whose career was manipulated by mobsters who managed to steer him to the heavyweight championship before his frailties were finally exposed. After his boxing career was over, Carnera turned to professional wrestling, a pursuit in regard to which he displayed a far greater level of proficiency.

In 1956, he sued the Columbia films, the company responsible for making Budd Schulberg’s The Harder They Fall, on the grounds of “invasion of privacy” because the character “Toro Moreno” appeared to have been modelled on him.

He lost the suit.

Although Carnera may have been marginally more talented than the fictional “Moreno”, there is only so much revisionism that can be accomplished in assessing the skills of the man who was known as the ‘Ambling Alp’.

Carnera was an active boxer at the time of Mussolini and was, albeit reluctantly, used as a symbol of fascist Italy. But just as Italian fascism has long been exposed as being not so benign -the myth that the trains ran on time unfortunately endures- the fraudulent aspects of the sporting achievements of the time, notably that of the World Cup-winning national football team of the 1930s, as well as Carnera’s own world boxing title winning feat have also been duly revealed.

He died in 1967, on the anniversary of his heavyweight title win.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2018)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.



Thursday, 20 September 2018

The Cambridge Companion to Boxing is to be Published Later this Year


The Cambridge Companion to Boxing is due to be published at the end of this year and I have contributed the following chapters to the project:

     ‘The Africans: Boxing and Africa’
     ‘Jose Torres: The Boxer as Writer’

Description

While humans have used their hands to engage in combat since the dawn of man, boxing originated in Ancient Greece as an Olympic event. It is one of the most popular, controversial and misunderstood sports in the world. For its advocates, it is a heroic expression of unfettered individualism. For its critics, it is a depraved and ruthless physical and commercial exploitation of mostly poor young men. This Companion offers engaging and informative essays about the social impact and historical importance of the sport, listing all the important events and personalities. Essays examine topics such as women in boxing, boxing and the rise of television, boxing in Africa, boxing and literature, and boxing and Hollywood films. A unique book for scholars and fans alike, this Companion explores the sport from its inception in Ancient Greece to the death of its most celebrated figure, Muhammad Ali.

Editor

Gerald Early, Professor of English and African-American Studies at Washington University, St. Louis. He has written about boxing since the early 1980s. His book, the Culture of Bruising (1994) won the 1994 National Book Critics Circle Award for criticism. He also edited the The Muhammad Ali Reader (1998) and Body Language: Writers (1998). His essays have appeared several times in the Best American Essays series.

Contributors

Byron J. Nakamura, Elliot J. Gorn, Adam Chill, Louis Moore, Colleen Aycock, Carlo Rotella, Troy Rondinone, Adeyinka Makinde, Benita Heiskanen, Cathy van Ingen, Steven A, Reiss, Tony Gee, Randy Roberts, Wil Haygood, Lewis Erenberg, Michael Ezra, Mark Scott, Kasia Boddy, Scott D. Emmer, Leger Grindon, Rebecca Wanzo, Benjamin Cawthra, Rosalind Early, Shelley Fisher Fishkin, Gerald Early.

Table of Contents

1. Boxing in the Ancient World by Byron J. Nakaruma
2. The Bare-Knuckle Era by Elliot J. Gorn
3. Jem Mace and the Making of Modern Boxing by Adam Chill
4.  Race and Boxing in the Nineteenth Century by Louis Moore
5. Joe Gans and his Contemporaries: The Contest for Supremacy in the Queensberry Realm by Colleen Aycock
6. Dempsey-Tunney, Tunney-Greb, and the 1920s by Carlo Rotella
7. Prime Time and Crime Time: Boxing in the 1950s by Troy Rondinone
8. The Africans: Boxing and Africa by Adeyinka Makinde
9. A Century of Fighting Latinos: From the Margins to the Mainstream by Benita Heiskanen
10. Women’s Boxing: Bout Time by Cathy van Ingen
11. Jews in Twentieth-Century Boxing by Steven A. Reiss
12. A Surprising Dearth of Top English-born Jewish Fighters in the Bare-Knuckle Era by Tony Gee
13. Joe Louis: ‘You Should Have Seen Him Then’ by Randy Roberts
14. The Furious Beauty of Sugar Ray by Wil Haygood
15. Echoes from the Jungle: Muhammad Ali in the Early 70s by Lewis Erenberg
16. The Unusable Champions: Sonny Liston (1962-1964) and Larry Holmes (1978-1985) by Michael Ezra
17. Emile Griffith: An Underrated Champion by Mark Scott
18. Pierce Egan, Boxing, and British Nationalism by Adam Chill
19. Jose Torres: The Boxer as Writer by Adeyinka Makinde
20. ‘Well, What was it really Like?’ George Plimpton, Norman Mailer, and the Heavyweights by Kasia Boddy
21. Jack London and the Great White Hopes of Boxing Literature by Scott D. Emmer
22. Body and Soul of the Screen Boxer by Leger Grindon
23. Black Slaver: Jack Johnson and the Mann Act by Rebecca Wanzo
24. Yesternow: Jack Johnson, Documentary Film, and the Politics of Jazz by Benjamin Cawthra
25. Opera for Boxers by Rosalind Early
26. The Voice of Boxing: A Brief History of American Broadcasting Ringside by Colleen Aycock
27. Ralph Wiley’s Surprising Serenity by Shelley Fisher Fishkin
28. Muhammad Ali, King of the Inauthentic by Gerald Early

Book Details

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Hardback: ISBN 978-1-107-05801-9
Paperback: ISBN 978-1-107-63120-5
Price: £69.99 (Hardback)/£24.99 (Paperback)

Mission

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.



Friday, 14 September 2018

James Wolfe and the Battle of the Plains of Abraham

General Wolfe Climbing the heights of Abraham on the Morning of the Battle of Quebec”. Ink and Watercolour by R. Caton Woodville (1906)

The Battle of Quebec, alternatively known as the Battle of the Plains of Abraham commenced on September 13th 1759. It was part of the Seven Years War fought between the empires of France and Britain on North American soil.

Led by James Wolfe, who at 32 was the youngest general in the British Army, the British scored a decisive victory. The battle is notable for many reasons including the fact that both commanding generals of the opposing armies, Wolfe and the French Louis-Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm, died on the first day of fighting.

The British victory, part of what became the Annus Mirabilis, not only secured Quebec, it consolidated Britain’s domination of the area that later became the nation of Canada.

For some however, Wolfe’s death may not have been merely the demise of a young and talented general, but with hindsight, the loss of someone who would have had the wits and the guile to have outmanoeuvred the resourceful George Washington during his rebellion against the British crown in the colony of America.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2018)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.


The Sardauna and SuperMac

Harold Macmillan (above) and Sir Ahmadu Bello

I recently stumbled upon a short piece entitled “Supermac and the Sardauna: Macmillan’s attitude to Class and Race in the Late Empire” by Andrew Cusack which I found to be most interesting.

It was inspired by a conversation relating to a post war British adage about British officers settling in Kenya while the sergeants went to Rhodesia. This was late empire, a period of decolonisation some peaceful and others fraught with violence.

Harold Macmillan, nicknamed ‘SuperMac’ and prime minister from 1957 to 1963, is of course a stand out figure of the times because of his “Wind of Change” speech in Cape Town before the South African Parliament while on a tour of Africa. In the speech, Macmillan referred to the African national consciousness which he likened to a “wind of change blowing through this continent”.

Macmillan enraged right-wing conservatives back home by explicitly rejecting the system of Apartheid, and insisting that black African independence had to come “whether we like it or not”.

A ‘One-Nation Tory’, Macmillan was an eloquent and thoughtful man who used humour very effectively in his speeches and everyday social and work-related intercourse. He was of the patrician class and held prejudices. Although he provided refugee Jewish families with shelter on his estate, when writing to a friend at the time of the Versailles Conference, he opined that the government of David Lloyd George was not “really popular, except with the international Jew”. And later on when noting how many Jewish individuals had been appointed to the cabinet of Margaret Thatcher, he joked “The thing about Margaret’s Cabinet is that it includes more Old Estonians than it does Old Etonians”.

His patrician heritage brought out the snob in him as recalled by Peregrine Worsthorne who noted that SuperMac once claimed to have been more comfortable with African aristocrats than he was with the British elite of southern African colonial society:

Somebody at some point has to mention, in any discussion of British politics, snobbery and class. I remember travelling and reporting on the ‘Wind of Change’ speech. We went to stay on the last bit, just before going on to Salisbury, was it the Sardauna of Sokoto who was the premier of the Northern Nigerian region. MacMillan talked to us after he had seen him, he was flying on to Welensky the next day.

Macmillan used to have a sundowner with the correspondents covering his trip, and over whisky and sodas he told us how much more at home he felt with the Sardauna, who reminded him of the Duke of Argyll - ‘a kind of black highland chieftain’ - than he would feel in Salisbury as the guest of a former railwayman, Sir Roy Welensky. Snobbery, pure snobbery.

However, Cusack’s opinion that what he terms the Sardauna’s “wisdom and experience” would have benefited Nigeria at federal level and even prevented the first army coup is one many would find misplaced. Ahmadu Bello preferred to remain Northern premier because he knew that he could function, to use Margaret Thatcher’s words, as a “good backseat driver.”

Bello, who was a direct descendant of Usman Dan Fodio, the Fulani jihadist who founded the Sokoto Caliphate, feared domination of the mainly Muslim North by the largely Christian and Western-educated South, and implemented a sort of an affirmative action strategy which discriminated against Nigerians from the South. He was in no position to lead at federal level because he would have been incapable of even paying lip-service to the idea of serving all Nigerians.

Further than Macmillan’s snobbish disposition, the British generally favoured the Northern emirs, because they fitted into the empire-ruling strategy of ‘indirect rule’ practised in Africa and Asia.

While Macmillan lived to a ripe old age, Bello was one of the civilian leaders assassinated during the army mutiny of January 1966. A counter-coup staged by mainly Northern military officers in July, would lead to the Civil War fought between 1967 and 1970.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2018)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.


Tuesday, 4 September 2018

"Dear Vlad, is it something I said?": The Fierce Rivalry between John McCain and Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin and John McCain

The ferocious sense of enmity that existed between John McCain, the late US Senator, and Vladimir Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, was quite palpable. While McCain was never an occupant of the White House, he was nonetheless a very prominent and permanent feature in the Cold War which developed during the 2000s.  He was always an influential figure operating openly as well as covertly during the defining events which have shaped relations between both countries: Georgia, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, as well as the machinations involved in first prising Montenegro from Serbia and then removing it from the Russian orbit of influence. Where some saw McCain as a key advocate for the export of American liberty to areas of the world afflicted by tyranny, others see Putin as the central figure in trying to arrest the destructive attempts by the United States to impose a global imperium after the fall of the Soviet Union. An exploration of the rivalry between both men, one an avowed America patriot and the other a Russian nationalist, provides a key thread in charting, as well as understanding why the United States and Russia have become dangerously at loggerheads in recent times.

The deep-seated mutual loathing between John McCain and Vladimir Putin was a well known and played out over many years. It is perhaps correct to state that McCain’s malice often came out in a more forthright manner. For instance, soon after it was announced in 2011 that Putin would again be running for the office of President of the Russian Federation, McCain issued a tweet saying that Russia faced its own Arab Spring”. While many implied that McCain was forecasting that Putin would perish in a similar way to the former Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, Putin opined that McCain’s comment had been directed at Russia in general. But he could not resist retorting that McCain had evidently “lost his mind” while being held captive by the North Vietnamese. To that barb, McCain mockingly responded:

“Dear Vlad, is it something I said?”

By all accounts, both men only met once at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. But they often appeared to be at each other’s throats. And this was not limited to intermittent threats and diatribes issued on social media, in speeches or at news conferences. Their hostility was an almost permanent feature in the discourse associated with the series of geopolitical confrontations that have occured over the past decade between the United States and the Russian Federation. The conflicts in Georgia, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, as well as the accession of Montenegro to NATO, all reflected the fundamental ideological division between them.

McCain’s consistent support for American interventionism, predicated on a belief in its exceptionalism, had the objective of maintaining US global leadership, while Putin’s nationalism was consistent with his objective of reestablishing multi-polarity. While McCain’s stance is characterised in positive terms as an insistence that ‘freedom’ should prevail over ‘tyranny’, Putin’s position is often portrayed by his supporters as one that is boldly resisting the imposition of American hegemony and even what is referred to as a ‘globalist agenda’.

Both men accused each other of fomenting a new ‘Cold War’. To McCain, Putin was the leader of a revanchist Russian state intent on reclaiming the territories lost after the breakup of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. In 2008, during his acceptance speech after being nominated as presidential candidate at the Republican Party Convention, McCain lashed out at Putin and the Russian oligarchs who, “rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power … (are) reassembling the old Russian Empire.”

Putin had, after all, in a speech three years earlier, bemoaned the collapse of the USSR as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.” As John Bolton put it in the aftermath of the crisis sparked by the removal of Viktor Yanukovych from power in 2014: “It’s clear (Putin) wants to re-establish Russian hegemony within the space of the former Soviet Union. Ukraine is the biggest prize, that’s what he’s after. The occupation of the Crimea is a step in that direction.”

Putin, on the other hand, considered McCain to be the promoter-in-chief of the American militarism that had germinated in the post-Cold War era. Those who support this view posit that American policy has, since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, being informed by two specific geopolitical doctrines inspired respectively by Paul Wolfowitz and Zbigniew Brzeziński. The Wolfowitz Doctrine holds that in the aftermath of the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States must prevent the rise of another power capable of competing with it globally in the military and economic spheres, while the Brzeziński Doctrine provides that Russia should be intimidated while the US works towards its dismantling; the objective being to reduce Russia to a state of vassalage, with its role being restricted to that of supplying the energy needs of the West.

When McCain sneered at Russia for being, in his words, “a gas station masquerading as a country”, he was not merely referring to Russia’s dependence on its oil and gas revenues for most of its national revenue. He was also hinting at the outcome prescribed by Brzeziński: Russia’s has no valid role in the world other than to pliantly provide its energy resources. It had no business opposing the United States in its god-given right to dominate the world.

During an interview in which McCain’s anti-Russian animus was discussed, Putin acknowledged that Russia’s possession of nuclear weapons was the decisive factor which enabled it to “practise independent politics”. In other words, having a nuclear capability, unlike those countries that have been destroyed by American intervention, gave Russia the ability to resist what he believed to be the aggressive foreign policy championed by the likes of McCain.

From the Russian perspective, Western animosity towards Russia and the incessant campaign by the Western media to demonise Putin is not based on heartfelt concerns about human rights and democracy, but is predicated on the fact that he brought to an end the wholesale plunder of Russia’s resources by Western interests during the presidency of Boris Yeltsin. Putin is also reviled for having the temerity to obstruct the American programme of effecting regime change in Syria as it did in Iraq and Libya and hopes to finish off by with Iran. The conduct of John McCain, and his attitude towards Putin, has been emblematic of this animosity.

When war broke out between Russia and Georgia in 2008, Putin accused McCain of having instigated the conflict in order to bolster his chances during his presidential run against Barack Obama. “The suspicion arises”, Putin said, “that someone in the United States especially created this conflict to make the situation tenser and create a competitive advantage for one of the candidates fighting for the post of US president.” McCain’s comment that the conflict had been mistakenly instigated by Georgia’s then president, Mikheil Saakashvili, did not impress Putin whose reading of events was that Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia had been encouraged by NATO.

In other conflicts where Russian interests were at stake, McCain was at the forefront. While NATO’s 2011 intervention in Libya had been permitted by United Nations Resolution 1973, a decision based on the ‘Right to Protect’ doctrine, Putin, who at the time was serving as prime minister, bitterly regretted President Dmitri Medvedev’s decision to support the resolution. Referring to it as “a medieval call for a crusade”, Putin correctly sensed what would transpire because the resolution permitted the use of air strikes. Gaddafi was overthrown and in the process lynched by Islamist forces that had been trained and supported by NATO countries.

John McCain had been a key voice in calling for US-intervention. He had gone to the city of Benghazi, a stronghold of the anti-Gaddafi insurgents where he walked around the streets and referred to the rebels as “heroic”. A disgusted Putin complained that “When the so-called civilised community, with all its might pounces on a small country, and ruins infrastructure that has been built over generations - well, I don’t know, is this good or bad? I do not like it.” He was also mindful that Russia stood to lose $4 billion in arms contracts with the Gaddafi government, and would doubtless have concurred with the protest issued by the then serving ambassador in Tripoli that Medvedev’s inaction by not blocking the resolution and thereby endangering the military contracts had amounted to a “betrayal of Russia’s interests.”

A few years later, while Libya functioned as a failed state, McCain would make another visit during which he gave an honour to Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a prominent Islamist leader of the insurgency.

McCain was also a visible presence in Ukraine during the Maidan protests that led to the overthrow of the government of Viktor Yanukovytch in February 2014. As in Libya, he walked the streets of Kiev. He addressed crowds and declared that Ukraine’s destiny lay with Europe. It was of course a plea to Ukraine to jettison itself outside the orbit of Russia. And while McCain’s actions in Kiev were viewed by his supporters as being in keeping with his resolve to expand the frontiers of liberty, others offered a different interpretation. According to George Friedman, the founder and CEO of Strafor, an American geopolitical intelligence platform and publisher which has been referred to as “The Shadow CIA”, the removal of Yanukovych “was the most blatant coup in history.”

Using neo-Nazi and ultra-nationalist groups such as Pravy Sektor as ‘street muscle’, the American intelligence and the State Department facilitated a change of government, an enterprise that was captured in part by phone taps which revealed Victoria Nuland, the Under Secretary of State for Eastern European and Eurasian Affairs, naming those who would hold key offices of state after Yanukovych’s ouster.

McCain, like Nuland, had met with a range of anti-Russian Ukrainian figures including Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the far right Svoboda Party, with whom he was photographed.

Meanwhile in Moscow, Putin calculated that the installation, by the Americans, of an ultra-nationalist and Russophobic regime on Russia’s doorstep imperilled Russia’s national security. So in order to secure its continued access to the Mediterranean Sea through one of its only warm water parts where its Black Sea Fleet resided, Putin set in motion the train of events which would lead to a referendum and the re-absorption of Crimea into Russia.

McCain denounced Putin’s action as illegal, and which was part of Putin’s objective of restoring Russia to the borders of the Soviet Union. In a BBC interview, he even compared Putin’s policy towards Crimea to those taken by Adolf Hitler.

He also led the calls for sanctions to be imposed on Russia. One of Putin’s responses was impose sanctions on McCain, an action to which he responded by tweeting: “I’m proud to be sanctioned by Putin - I’ll never cease in my efforts (and) dedication to freedom (and) independence of Ukraine, which includes Crimea.”

McCain was active in another theatre where American and Russian interests collided. In Syria, he did not stop at calling for a more direct course of action from the United States aimed at overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. In December 2013, he visited insurgents -announced as belonging to the “Free Syrian Army”- who he described as “brave fighters who are risking their lives for freedom”. Both designations were untrue. The “freedom fighters”, more accurately defined by the Syrian government as “terrorists”, were like the rebels who McCain met in Benghazi: insurgents with an Islamist agenda.

The ‘Free Syrian Army’ was a largely non-existent militia formed by the Western powers which failed to grow into the large army that was envisaged. Moreover, many groups that met Western representatives such as McCain often announced themselves as being part of the ‘Free Syrian Army’, but reverted back to their true identities which more often than not were jihadist militias bearing an allegiance to al-Qaeda.

This modus operandi was alluded to by Putin in his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2015 when announcing a more direct form of intervention in the Syrian conflict: “First, they are armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes.”

The destruction of Syria sought by McCain was predicated on the neoconservative policy of removing the leaders of those Arab states, most of them secular, who were resistant to Israel’s regional hegemony. The refusal of Assad to participate in building a gas pipeline supplying energy from pro-Western states in the Gulf also played a part in the decision of the United States to arm Islamist proxies.

But Russian intervention, in concert with the efforts of Iran and Hezbollah, has enabled the Syrian Army to reclaim most of the Syrian territory that had been taken by groups such as the ‘al Nusra Front’ and the ‘Islamic State’. It was a turn of events which angered and frustrated McCain who referred to President Barack Obama’s policy as “toothless”. He advocated a strategy of creating “safe zones”, ostensibly to protect Syrian civilians from what he termed “violations by Mr. Assad, Mr. Putin and extremist forces”. The strategy of ‘safe zones’, a technique used by NATO when confronting and destroying the Libyan army in 2011, was acknowledged by a declassified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document as a technique through which the creation of independent territorial entities could be created, in the case of Syria, a Salafist emirate in its eastern region.

But if the goal of regime change in Syria, so vigorously encouraged by McCain, was frustrated by Putin, his efforts in enabling the state of Montenegro to be first prised from Serbia and then granted NATO membership status doubtlessly succeeded in doing the same to Putin.

McCain’s actions in helping to enable the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to buy up Montenegro’s aluminium industry, perplexed observers who accused him of hypocrisy in allowing a man, who at the time was dubbed ‘Putin’s Oligarch’, to control the aluminum-dependent Montenigrin economy. Deripaska’s supposed closeness to Putin at the time convinced some that McCain was actually working for his arch-enemy.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Montenegro was being bought up en masse by Western financiers such as Nathaniel Rothschild and many of its leaders were being paid off to seek independence from Serbia as a prelude to it joining the Atlantic Alliance. When Senator Rand Paul blocked the initial Senate conferment on ratification of Montenigrin accession, McCain took the floor and furiously accused Paul of being an agent of Vladimir Putin.

Repeatedly invoking the name of Putin, McCain warned: “If there is objection, you are achieving the objectives of Vladimir Putin… I have no idea why anyone would object to this, except that I will say, if they object: they are now carrying out the desires and ambitions of Vladimir Putin.”

McCain had played his part in an elaborate plot aimed at checking Russian interests. Placing Montenegro into the Western sphere succeeded in denting Russian influence in an area which is traditionally linked to Russia because of the Christian Orthodox faith of its Slav inhabitants. The subsequent drilling for oil off the pristine Adriatic coast is calculated to nullify Russian designs on a South Stream pipeline.

McCain revelled in the news that a coup, allegedly planned to occur on the day of parliamentary elections in October 2016, had been foiled. Its participants were claimed to have been Kremlin-backed Serbian and Russian nationalists who were acting in a last ditch attempt to prevent the country’s accession to NATO. McCain took to the senate floor to make a speech (which he later converted into a newspaper column) to denounce Putin.

Claiming that “Vladimir Putin’s Russia is on the offensive against Western democracy”, McCain linked the Montenigrin plot to the alleged Russian interference in the last American presidential elections and others by writing that it was “just one phase of Putin’s long-term campaign to weaken the United States, to destabilise Europe, to break the NATO alliance, to undermine confidence in Western values, and to erode any and all resistance to his dangerous view of the world.”

While doubts have been raised concerning the existence of a serious plot because the alleged ring appeared to be composed of a motley band emanating from disparate and innocuous trades and professions -some of whom were elderly and others who reneged on their confessions- Montenegrin accession remains a blow to Russian interests.

McCain often placed the blame of a US-Russian Cold War squarely on Putin’s shoulders. When in 2007, Putin complained that the US was seeking to establish a “uni-polar” world, it was McCain who led the Western retort by accusing Putin of presiding over an autocratic regime whose “actions at home and abroad conflict so fundamentally with the core values of Euro-Atlantic democracies.” After the conference, the BBC reported that “in the corridors there were dark mutterings by some about a new Cold War”.

If there is any truth to John McCain’s assertion that Vladimir Putin was treating global politics as a “Cold War Chessboard”, then his involvement in the Montenigrin intrigue demonstrated that he was a willing player in this ‘Great Game’ of international brinkmanship. Further, McCain’s repeated accusation of Putin being the initiator of the disharmonious state of relations between Russia and the United States is disputed by experts such as Stephen Cohen, a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton. Cohen convincingly argues that Putin’s actions on the world stage in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria have been reactive and not proactive.

We have the word of McCain himself to confirm this about the Russo-Georgian conflict which he claimed had been “a mistake” initiated by Mikheil Saakashvili. And Putin’s withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgian territory, which had long been a province of both Russian and Soviet empires, presents evidence that he is not working towards a ‘Tanaka Memorial’-style plan of territorial expansion.

The same may be said of Ukraine, in regard to which Putin refused the pleas of Russian ultranationalists to invade and annexe the Russian-speaking eastern part of the country. His refusal led to allegations of ‘weakness’ from hardliners. The Russian armed forces, of course, had the capability of invading and conquering the whole of Ukraine. Putin’s measured response in limiting his response to American actions such as reabsorbing Crimea also applies to Syria where Russian intervention came after much prevarication by a chief of state who unsurprisingly worried about sending the Russian military into a quagmire of the sort which the Soviet Union became embroiled in the 1980s.

McCain, on the other hand, supported the idea of US military intervention across the globe. He is on record as supporting virtually every US-led or US-backed overt or covert military action before and after the events of September 11th 2001. His support for American militarism and his prominence as a high-ranking US senator intimately involved in national security affairs made his rivalry with Vladimir Putin something of an inevitability. In many ways, McCain embodies the American half of the new Cold War because his longevity as a senator provided the basis for his continuous presence in the realm of national security and foreign policy. Presidents came and contended with Vladimir Putin, but McCain remained an ever present figure until his death.

McCain appeared to be as convinced about the ineluctable force of evil Vladimir Putin represented as he was of the sanctity of the wars he made in the cause of spreading American liberty. When Donald Trump responded to an interviewer’s allegation that Putin murdered his political adversaries by inquiring whether the interviewer thought "our country’s so innocent”, McCain exploded on the senate floor and insisted that there was no moral equivalence between the United States and “Putin’s Russia”. Loudly tapping on the lectern he boomed: “I repeat, there is no moral equivalence between that butcher and thug and KGB colonel and the United States of America.”

Putin’s feelings about McCain are no less gentle. He once specifically alluded to McCain having “civilian blood on his hands” during his time of service in the Vietnam War. And he made clear that he held McCain, alongside other American political leaders, responsible for the murder of Muammar Gaddafi, once asking whether McCain was unable “to live without such horrible and disgusting sights as the butchering of Gaddafi”. It is clear that Putin, like many of McCain’s critics who accused him of being a perpetual warmonger, hold him jointly culpable for the millions of deaths that have flowed from American backed military interventions.

Indeed, when during his 2015 UN speech, Putin criticised “policies based on self-conceit and belief in one’s exceptionality”, he might have had McCain in mind. Far from pushing the frontiers of liberty and order, the wars that McCain supported in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria were marked by failure. As Putin put it, “Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.”

While Putin would concede to ‘liking’ McCain “to a certain extent..because of his patriotism…and…his consistency in fighting for the interests of his own country”, McCain never put on record any qualities that he felt Putin possessed. He died taking his anti-Putin animus to the grave. First he arranged for a Russian dissident named Vladimir Kara-Murza to serve as one of the dignitaries to carry his coffin to the front of the Washington National Cathedral at a memorial service. Then in another parting shot at his nemesis, McCain specifically requested for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to be seated beside each other during the ceremony.

These gestures were the last of what must surely rank as one of the bitterest international political rivalries of recent times.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2018)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.